I just sent Durst this nastygram:

"I am writing to express my extreme disappointment with your corporation's ill-advised decision to change the architectural design of the spire/antenna mast on top of World Trade Center One. SOM's final design for the radome covering the spire was both aesthetically pleasing, contiguous with the building's design, and functional in that it allowed for maintenance to be conducted on the mast while protected from the elements. This tower is not just another building in NYC, it is a memorial to the events and loss of life on 9-11 and a new centerpiece for the city. Your company will ultimately be held responsible by not only the people of NYC, but all of the U.S. who look to this symbol of national pride if your selfish and foolish change to the spire is implemented. That should make for some good long-term PR!"

:yes:

There's some purity in 1960/70's highrise design isn't there? Huge and fully built out. Almost all floors an office from 2-110. We seem to add alot of non-rentable filler nowadays that end up with misleading floor counts.

I'm starting to move toward government finance and the "build it and they will come" ideology for not only 1 WTC but for the whole new World Trade Center as well. If this isn't any old tower,but a symbol for America and its people, the people can pay taxes to finance this instead. I may be talking crazy,but I simply don't trust private companies like Durst and DCM anymore. The PA, even if it is a public entity, is no different from the rest of the pack. We can't allow them to turn the spire, the crowning structure of this tower, into some half-done antenna. You know what? Let the ESB keep all its broadcasting rights if it means that 1 WTC will stay the way it's suppose to be. There always has to be something wrong with this project.

What's their email adress?

Spire
 

My thought is, if a frame can be produced with the same polygonal shapes that produced the radome laden spire, (epoxy that white and) from most perspectives it will be very close in appearance. It will be too dense to notice it is not solid from almost any ground perspective aside from close up. The LED lighting will give it better and more efficient lighting options. Let's just see what comes of this. As with the base cladding I do not think there will be a loss here, these people like this stuff the same if not more than us, it's their profession. This building will be iconic, none involved will prevent that, they know the deal, this is a work of passion. Cheers! :cheers:

^^ I don't care if they clad the base in gold, if the spire doesn't stay the way it's supposed to be, it's pretty much game over, aesthetically speaking.
All our hopes rely on SOM now to wake those f*turds from their insane idea.

Btw, I sent an email too... let's see if I'll get any answer.

Jordan Barowitz
The Durst Organization
jbarowitz@durst.org
212-257-6605

OR simply email to info@durst.org

Port Authority/Durst press release...

http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/pre...adLine_id=1544

STATE-OF-THE-ART BROADCAST CENTER POISED TO RETURN TO WORLD TRADE CENTER

Mar 06, 2012

Guys, right now is the PERFECT time to have our voices heard before the plan is put into action. We're just a few months away before this becomes reality.

Let's call the Port Authority and raise hell. Let's make a nationwide protest. Let's spread the word. I have yet to see ONE person agree with the Durst idea... Oh yeah, besides the company itself.

Good luck. I hope you're successful. The lack of transparency continues at the P.A. There should have been a public comment period at the very least concerning this last minute change. I'm still hopeful it will look similar to the original spire.

oy! Seriously?

From Durst

RE: Antenna on one WTC

Thank you for your note about One World Trade Center.  The decision to eliminate the Radome was not made for financial reasons or even aesthetics. We eliminated the Radome because it could not be maintained or serviced.  Radome simply does not work on the spire of One World Trade Center.   The Spire will be lit with LEDs, have a beacon on the top and look terrific.

Best,

Jordan Barowitz

From the naked eye...how much of a difference will be noticed from ground level?? Not trying to stir the pot either. I want to see the original design.

It may look nice at night with the lights and beacon but if that antenna is naked it will look ugly during the day which is really all that matters. If they're not going to cover it in Radome at least let them cover it in a steel lattice sort of like the original design for the spire. To me that looks nice too.

That sad that Jordan said that.. Because if I recall, that's exactly what he said to Dan (NYCLuver)... Absolutely despicable.

And when you think about it, technically it DOES have to do with financial reasons.
"The Durst firm agreed to spend about $7.4 million to build the 1 World Trade Center antenna, according to the statement. It is prepared to pay another $20 million more in “tenanting costs” to enable broadcasters to use the spire, which is expected to generate about $10 million a year in revenue."

All they want is money from broadcasting tenants.

-- ALSO, if the "radome does simply not work on the spire of the World Trade Center," why did they have these plans like 6 years ago that INCLUDED the radome? How come we're changing now?

You need to write back and ask how it couldn't be maintained or serviced when it was originally designed TO MAINTAIN AND SERVICE THE SPIRE.

call them.

So now the total height should be measured to roof height right? I really don't see how this antenna is any different than the two on top of Sears. Epically now that the covering is not going to be put on. It is just an antenna, not an architectural spire.

So is this definite that there won't be a mast?

With the Burj Khalifa at 829.84 m (2,723 ft), there is no way that 1WTC could ever be in contention for the world's tallest building.